Marshall Obsessed With Feminism
He tells MassNews that finding a non-homosexual expert to advise a judge in the Hampshire County Probate and Family Court is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
"The average father in divorce court," he says, "cannot understand how such dysfunctional people - who are incapable of having intimate relations with the opposite sex - can be empowered to make decisions about their children."
Charalambous says, "Many men have come to reject the courts as a place where justice is possible, and have instead adopted a completely antagonistic posture.
Justice Marshall oversees a court system that makes 'taxpayers bear the burden of an unreasonably expensive system... and (where) litigants wait years for justice.'
In the matter of child abuse, says Charalambous: "The courts have overreacted to the real and heinous abuse of children by adults by removing any disincentives for unscrupulous and evil people willing to fabricate allegations.
Every woman in the Commonwealth knows that if she chooses to break up her family, she can have her ex-husband's head on a platter if she chooses. She is given a choice of weapons to use, and once allegations are made, the father is guilty until proven innocent.
"From a broader perspective, the courts have responded to laws that have increasingly taken matters that were once considered personal and private into the legal arena. This is only to be expected when a society dismantles cultural norms and embraces moral relativism.
"Thanks to years of feminist indoctrination, the courts have been trained to give knee-jerk responses to women claiming to be 'abused.' Judges are trained to believe that when a man raises his voice to his wife, he will eventually kill her unless there is state intervention.
"The courts make no distinction between normal family conflict and real domestic violence, largely because the law doesn't.
"Faced with these inherently anti-father, anti-family attitudes prevalent throughout the court system, many men have decided to go pro se [people who represent themselves in court without an attorney]. Fathers' rights and legal self-help groups are growing in number and effectiveness. These men learn the law and represent themselves. And they are presently tying up the courts because of their insistence on a justice that they will never likely see."
"But perhaps the biggest problem faced by the Courts is the explosion in pro se litigants in Probate & Family court cases. This issue is of such importance that the Pro Se Committee was established in 1997, in response to a 1995 symposium jointly sponsored by the Probate and Family Court and the Flaschner Judicial Institute. In April of 2000, a new administrative position was created to deal exclusively with the increasing number of pro se litigants: the Pro Se Coordinator.
"At the time of this report, hard numbers were not available, though there was universal consensus that the number of pro se litigants was increasing. However, the annual report from the SJC in Feb. 2000 did provide some numbers for the amount of pro se litigants in this Court:
"In family court, clients who represent themselves account for 69% of those who petition for guardianship of minors, 31% of those filing for divorce, 34% of those trying to establish paternity, 50% of those who file contempt complaints and 57% of those seeking modification of court orders."
Charalambous says that "Other information in the Pro Se Report makes the caseload-increase figure that the new panel has for the Trial Courts (only a 0.5% increase) appear disingenuous. If the caseload figures were broken down by the various courts that comprise the Trial Courts, a different picture would emerge.
According to the Pro Se Committee Report: "In the twenty-year period since 1979, filings in the Probate and Family Court have increased 49% from 105,820 in 1979 to 158,074 in 1998. In contrast, the Superior Court reported 58,785 cases commenced in 1979 and 39,050 in 1998.
"Therefore, caseloads have clearly increased in Probate and Family Court, though they may have declined in Superior Court and perhaps other courts."
"Many if not most of these pro se litigants," says Chalambous, "are fathers in custody, domestic abuse and child support cases. They have chosen to go pro se not just because they cannot afford legal representation, but due to their belief, based on their prior court experiences, that men cannot receive justice in our courts in domestic relations matters when their antagonist is female.
"Many of these fathers, having no previous experience with the law, have in fact become true experts in the law - out of necessity, not out of pleasure or gain. This also accounts for the explosion in appeals of criminal cases, also recognized by the courts in their own reports. Over the past twenty years, getting divorced has in fact become a process of criminalization for many fathers. They are criminalized as a result of boiler-plate abuse protection actions routinely used in divorces and family breakups, as well as in inability of the fathers to keep up with exorbitant child support awards.
"The Pro Se report states: 'Although the Department of Revenue represents the financial interests of the moving party, who is most often the mother, the father is generally pro se.'"
Massachusetts Is No Longer Independent: Chief Justice of SJC Is 'Agent' of NY Times
When an employee of The New York Times Company, columnist Anthony Lewis of the New York office, discovered his wife, Margaret Marshall, had been nominated to become Chief of our state's Supreme Court, another subsidiary of The New York Times Company, the Boston Globe, put forth one of its famous, fiercely partisan attacks with columns, editorials and opinionated news stories to mandate that she be confirmed. Never once did the Globe reveal that it had a conflict of interest because the owner of the Times Company is good friends with this employee, Anthony Lewis.
We will never know how much Marshall is influenced by the Times, but we do know that that newspaper is for gay marriage and has editorialized heavily in its favor. Whether the Globe put forth a huge effort for Marshall because the Times knew she would be on their side, or whether they are able to control her, we will never know. But they obviously believe they have a problem of some sort when their relationship is kept secret.
Massachusetts lost control of its press when the independent Boston Globe was sold to the New York Times Company ten years ago. That media giant now manages the Globe from its offices at 229 West 43rd Street. Most people agree that the Globe is no longer a great newspaper. Metro Editor Peter Canellos wrote a memo to senior management a few years ago, which was leaked to the Herald, complaining that the majority of his reporters and editors lack talent.
Who Is Margaret Marshall?
Margaret Marshall is in her late fifties and is married to Anthony Lewis, former columnist for the New York Times, who is twenty-years her senior. She apparently has no children and some say that as a result, she has no appreciation for the feelings of women who do. They say she has never had any experience with a family and has focused only on her career.
The Globe lobbied heavily for Marshall in its Editorial, opinion and news pages. The appointment was strongly opposed by many. In a "news story" on Oct. 12, 1999, titled "Rulings show nominee a moderate jurist with progressive views," the first sentence was:
"Sex offenders have rights. … Modern families no longer mean just mom, dad, and the kids."
The paper cited some of those "moderate" rulings:
o The Globe wrote: "When the SJC last August ruled that anyone convicted of a sex crime is entitled to a hearing before being listed on the state's sex-offender registry, Marshall wrote: 'The burden will be on the sex offender board to establish at the hearing that the offender poses a risk to vulnerable populations.'"
o Concerning an opinion where Marshall had struck down a Boston ordinance creating domestic partners because it was clearly forbidden by state law, the Globe wrote:
"Marshall urged state lawmakers to craft legislation that acknowledges the place of nontraditional families in modern life. 'We recognize that . . . [a] "family" may no longer be constituted simply of a wage-earning father, his dependent wife, and the couple's children,' Marshall wrote. Nonetheless, 'Adjustments in the legislation to reflect these new social and economic realities must come from the Legislature.'" (The foregoing text appeared in the Globe exactly as printed here.)
The news article also claimed: "An examination of her rulings and the comments of colleagues indicate a moderate jurist who tempers some of her progressive views with judicial restraint and an awareness of the powers and limits of the courts. In the tradition-bound court that convenes in a high-rise on Pemberton Square, Marshall, the controversial chief justice nominee, has also added energy and spice to a frequently bland bench."
Marshall graduated from college in her South African homeland in 1966 and came here two years later for a master's degree from Harvard. After Yale Law School, she became a partner in the prestigious firm of Choate, Hall and Stewart, leaving there to become General Counsel for Harvard University. She was appointed to the SJC in 1996 and then elevated by Gov. Cellucci to Chief in 1999.